Can you be more specific on the year? If it's over 6 years (5 in Scotland) and not subject to a CCJ, it will almost certainly be Statute Barred. This would probably explain MH's sudden interest, if their time is almost up! Remember, the onus is on them to prove that you owe money, not for you to prove that you don't! Unless you're certain it's statute barred, I'd write back and say that as you have absolutely no knowledge of this alleged debt and do not acknowedge it, they should send you a copy of the executed agreement they're relying on. A subtly modified version of the CCA request letter should do the trick. Remember to enclose your £1 fee. I always include a paragraph such as "please find enclosed cheque number 112233 for £1 in respect of the statutory fee. Please note that under no circumstances is this to be put towards any alleged debt. If you are unable to supply the documents requested then you should return this fee." Don't pay too much attention to their deadlines - they're just trying to panic you. And NEVER speak to them on the phone! Ever.

Pretty much the same as clutchingatstraws. They're a two-man-band in a rented office on a trade estate. Mr K and Mrs M Dowling are the K and M in the company name. They haven't got a website or even a proper email address - just an AOL account. Very professional. MEPC - Birchwood Park, Warrington - K M Investigations De

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I have a question. Anybody who also received junk mail offering loans while they were dealing with their creditors, please try and remember if you had applied for a credit report in the weeks previously. If so, could you post your experiences here. And have a look at the thread below - it's possible that there's a link. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/112671-r-subject-access-request.html

Hmm. Richard Fenton says "don't write off the deceased". Well, you might think that makes him lowlife, and if that's your personal opinion then who am I to argue? But did you know he used to be operations director at that lovely caring bunch BCW? LinkedIn: Richard Fenton

This thread has brought up some memories. A while back, I started the thread "too strange to be a co-incidence", because my OH received some junk mail after starting negotiations with her creditors. Of course, she applied for her credit report at the time, and it never occurred to me that it could have been the CRA who unlawfully (in my opinion) passed her details on. If that's the case I'll be very angry. I think I'll ask her to do a full Subject Access Request and ask a specific question about data sharing.

For comedy effect, scroll back up to post #27 and see what Cabot are claiming an agreement looks like

Cabot's new tactic is to bury their heads in the sand and say that the CCA doesn't apply to them (which differs from many people's understanding of the defination of "creditor" in section 189). They believe this gives them carte blanche to ignore CCA requests. AFAIK it's not been tested in court whether this a valid arguement, but if you ask in the Cabot forum I'm sure some of the experts there will advise Other than that, keep in mind that if this alleged debt dates back to '98 and has never been subject to a CCJ, it will be statute barred. So long as you don't admit it in writing, nor pay anything towards it, I can't see any DCA taking it further.

Counting date of receipt as day zero, they've got 12 working days before they are in default. A further month on they commit an offence.

I just pointed out that I'd already sent a CCA request to the original creditor, and asked if they had a copy of the agreement themselves. I even sent them a quid! They sent my cheque back with a letter saying that the OC would be in touch shortly. Cowards.

You'd have a defence if you could reasonably not be expected to notice their mistake. Say you were expecting to be paid £1100 but they paid you £1200, I doubt you'd notice. But if they paid you £11,000.... I'd say that any defence rests on you being able to demonstate that you took reasonable steps to notify them of their mistake as soon as you noticed it. You say that you tried to phone them, but did you put anything in writing - and do you have records? If you can't prove that you'd made an effort to notify them, the best you can hope for is that they'll drop Court action and settle. The Court would take a dim view of their action if they had refused a reasonable offer of setlement before they started proceedings. If it does make it to Court, the judge will take your circumstances into account and only order you to back the money back in instalments you can genuinely afford.

I'd say that based on the posts here, any legal action instigated by MH could be viewed as vexatious. And yes, they're talking out of the arses....

Be aware that the ICO are up to their eyeballs in complaints at the moment. But as I've just posted in this thread, they do get there in the end.

Allegedly, of course.

Good for you. I had Scotcall on my case for about as long as it took them to read my letter, then they backed off and passed me back to the OC. They've bought a lemon, and they'll know it.

Hey, Uncle Ken, I received an acknowledgement letter from the FOS today. They sound like very nice people.

This is for anybody who has experienced frustration with the ICO - they take their time but they DO get the job done eventually. I sent a complaint to them in April about a gym which had defaulted me despite me cancelling within their T&Cs, and subsequently ignored my Data Subject Notice requiring them to firstly rectify my information with the CRAs and then to stop processing it. When I chased it up I was told there was a big backlog, and had almost given up. Today I received a letter from the ICO saying that they'd investigated, that they agreed with my accusations and that they'd written to the company in question telling them to comply. Obviously their ruling isn't legally binding, but I'm hoping that the management company take notice, otherwise I'll be starting court action and waving the ICO's letter in front of the judge So if a bank, DCA or anybody else has breached the Data Protection Act, it is worth complaining!

This thread here is typical of their arrogance, as posters moan about having to comply with CCA2006 Credit Today online

I like it. I shouldn't, it's borderline sick, but I like it. Would you be willing to share your experiences on this 'ere forum? I'm sure a lot of people would be VERY interested.

As I've posted in your other thread, you'd need to prove in Court that you've suffered actual damage as a result - such as being refused a financial product or having to pay a higher interest rate. I appreciate you're annoyed at A&L, rightly so, but I simply cannot see a case for compensation.

Ok, so how has that manifested itself into actual financial loss? Have you been refused credit as a result, or had to pay a higher interest rate? I'm not being difficult, just trying to make you aware of what you'll need to prove in court to obtain compensation.

Well in my case it's claimed that "the Cabot Group" bought my alleged debt. As there's no such limited company as "the Cabot Group" I've asked them to clarify the exact name of the company which they claim owns my alleged debt, and to provide details of any other companies to whom they've passed my data along with evidence of my consent to do so. I'll let you know what they say....

Definately ask for this to be moved to the Cabot forum, but in the meantime.... There's probably more chance of Cabot visiting you than Natalie Imbruglia visiting me with a bottle of fine wine and clutching a winning lottery ticket - then being struck by lightning. Twice. But if they do turn up, as I'm sure you're well aware they've got absolutely no legal right of entry. Politely but firmly tell them to leave, repeat if necessary informing them you'll call the police. It's not your job to prove you don't owe anything, but obviously it would make your life easier if you can produce evidence to that effect. Cabot are a law unto themselves, and don't back off easily. But I'm sure you'll be sending them a CCA request, won't you?

Banks and DCAs may well have internal policies regarding staff use of the internet, but there's no law or statute which would stop any individual visiting a publicly available website. I wonder if the Cabot employees are finding coveritup useful

@CTEditor: Thank you for taking the time to explain your side of the story. I would be most grateful if after the awards you would make available to the public a full list of the catagories and winners, along with examples of evidence which you have used to support your decisions. I would also be very interested to see which of those winners support your magazine with advertising revenue. Should I expect to see companies like Experian and Intrim Justitia among the winners - or is that just me being cynical? As you are surely aware from the replies to your post, many of us have experienced nothing but unlawful and unethical behaviour from not one but a variety of DCAs, including but not limited to harrassment, failure to comply with consumer law, false representation, attempting to chase non-existant or statute-barred debt, phishing, data protection breaches, and good old fashioned rudeness. The fact that Googling for pretty much any DCA brings up this and other consumer websites long before the company's own site speaks volumes; plus for every one of us here who is aware of their legal rights, you can bet there are another hundred suffering in silence and falling victim to the underhand tactics of these companies who hide behind fluffy and meaningless mission statements. Obviously yours is a vast industry, and there are many individuals doing a fine job and, like us all, just wanting to pay their bills. But please excuse us if we don't believe that the whole awards ceremony isn't a mutual back-slapping and navel-gazing exercise by a self-serving and incestious bunch who care not a jot who they trample over so long as the bottom line is a big fat profit.

I share your frustration, but it's catch 22. Very few people bother reporting rogue companies because they don't believe anything will happen, very little happens because so few people bother complaining. For my part, I've reported Cabot to the OFT, Information Commissioners Office and FOS; and will take them to Court if necessary. My complaints may very well fall on deaf ears, but if enough of us make it clear to the regulators that we are not prepared to tolerate unlawful and unethical behaviour then eventually they'll be forced to act. Two years ago the banks weren't scared to ride roughshod over individuals. Now after a succession of court cases they've realised it's costing them millions. I believe it's the turn of the debt purchasing industry.